Fracking bill’s late changes scare enviros

Late last night, California’s state senate approved a hotly contested bill to regulate fracking, sending the legislation to Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk. And a spokesman for the governor said Brown looks forward to signing it.

The bill from Sen. Fran Pavley provoked intense opposition not just from the oil industry but from many environmentalists, who had been urging Brown to ban fracking instead. Word that he plans to sign the bill appears to have dashed those hopes, at least for now.

Sen. Fran Pavley

Pavley, a Los Angeles County Democrat, wrote California’s landmark global warming law, AB32. She usually counts the environmental community among her staunchest supporters. And indeed, some of the state’s biggest environmental organizations backed her bill, which would regulate acidizing as well fracking.

But as the bill neared approval this week, several of those groups — including the Natural Resources Defense Council and the California League of Conservation Voters — switched positions. Amended at the last minute, the bill could now do more harm than good, they said.

The state agency that oversees oil drilling — the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources — currently doesn’t require an environmental impact report from a company that wants to frack a well. Some environmentalists argue that the division, known by its acronym DOGGR, is violating CEQA in the process. They’ve sued DOGGR, hoping to force the state to require environmental impact reports for fracking.

Under Pavley’s bill, companies would need a specific permit to frack a well. The bill also would order DOGGR to have in place a new set of regulations for fracking and acidizing by the start of 2015. From now until then, however, the bill says that if the head of DOGGR determines that a fracking application meets all the basic requirements of CEQA, “no additional review or mitigation shall be required.”

“That sure sounds like creating a loophole in CEQA,” said Kassie Siegel, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute. Her group is one of those suing the state over the lack of environmental impact reports for fracking.

“DOGGR has not been complying with the law, and now the legislature just changed the law,” she said. “In the short term, we now have less protection from fracking than existing law provides.”

Pavley’s bill would require DOGGR to assemble a state-wide environmental impact report for fracking, acidizing and other well-stimulation techniques. But the report would not need to be finished until July of 2015.

Environmentalists also worry about language in the bill saying that before the start of 2015, the state “shall allow” all well stimulation techniques to continue, provided each fracking or acidizing project meets a short set of conditions. The word “shall,” environmentalists say, could be interpreted to mean that the state can’t block fracking projects, even if valid concerns are raised. It could also mean that Brown would be unable to impose a moratorium if he wanted to.

Pavley says the environmentalists’ concerns are overblown. The bill contains language stating that the legislation does not supersede any existing state law. And it doesn’t usurp anyone’s authority, including Brown’s, according to Pavley’s staff.

“Lawyers on all sides will come up with worst case scenarios of how language in legislation functions,” Pavley said. “However, the intent of this bill is clear. Unregulated fracking and acidizing is unacceptable, and on January 1, 2014, these hidden industrial activities will finally be regulated, with meaningful environmental review and mandatory mitigation, as well as public disclosure of all chemicals and well locations, groundwater monitoring and other safeguards.”